Repeating The Claim That DRM Enables Things Won't Make It True

from the again-and-again-and-again dept

One of manufacturers and supporters of DRM's favorite lines is about how DRM "enables" all sorts of wonderful new things, when it simply isn't true. DRM makes nothing possible in and of itself, it merely exists to frustrate users and lock down content. It's all hot air, no matter how many times it gets repeated by entertainment industry execs trying to make their content-restriction technologies sound like a good thing. The RIAA's Mitch Bainwol, as you might expect, has talked plenty of nonsense about the value of DRM and why it's necessary. He's now gone a step further, telling an industry event that "DRM serves all sorts of pro-consumer purposes." Really? Name one, Mitch. He then put the blame for consumer frustration with copy-protection on interoperability issues. While interoperability certainly is a major pain point, it's one that exists only because of DRM. Ditch the DRM and the interoperability problems disappear, and along with it, so many consumer headaches. That would be the "pro-consumer" move.

interoperability

Interoperability is not an issue separate from DRM - it goes to the heart of the design of DRM.

If the industry wants DRM to succeed the first thing they have to do is design a consumer (as opposed to industry) friendly model of DRM. The problem is that that industry is trying to not merely lock down content - they are also trying to lock down each other with DRM that can collect licencing fees from manufacturers.

Re: Boy, I'm full of quotes this week.

I wonder if that quote was referring to quantum mechanics.. since the outcome of a single iteration of a quantum experiment is not necessarily the outcome of each iteration. Quantum mechanics only tells you the likelihood of a given outcome(Something Einstein didn't like about it.).

On a more conceding note, DRM does have a few potential benefits for consumers. It's just in that they are dwarfed by the harmful aspects.

Potential benefits to consumers:

By deterring copyright infringement at a reasonably low cost to the content provider, they allow content vendors to charge more than the market would otherwise bear. This can result in higher profits which will allow projects to get funding that otherwise would stay on the shelf. This, BTW, is one of the reasons for copyright laws in the first place. A better solution is to appeal to people's sense of honesty and fair play. It worked for the author of Far Side.

If there will be fewer sales "lost" to "pirates," the vendor can lower the price and make the same profit. Unfortunately, the vendor is more likely to keep the price at the "sweet spot" for him not for the customer. But it is a potential benefit.

Re: But DRM does enable things

Hello Mr Brainwashed by the RIAA.

"By deterring copyright infringement at a reasonably low cost to the content provider"

In no way, shape or form has any DRM ever hindered piracy.

Why do muppets like you keep trotting this complete lie out? Please provide a single example of any digital media that is publicly available and that is protected by copy protection that cannot be easily obtained via street vendors, bit torrent, newsgroups or whatever other supposed illegal means.

The RIAA just needs...

hmmmm, I think eMusic.com continues to do a very brisk business, thank you very much. Let's see:

1) 192kbps VBR as opposed to Apple's 128kbps

2) roughly 30 cents a song and $3-4 an album as opposed to most other services that charge $1 a track or $10 an albums.

3) NO DRM

Not to mention that, despite claims to the contrary, you can find plenty of "name" bands (even if it's only some of their early releases in some cases), and plenty of lesser known bands that are every bit as good as, and in some cases vastly better than, the stuff peddled on the radio.

Personally, I've got so much music lined up on eMusic I wish I had a second or third account to acquire it all.

I bought about 100 albums a year from 1987 until 2001. I stopped buying music until last year because of the crappy quality, excessive price, and crappy industry policy. In the past year or so I've bought about 150-200 albums(I'd say about 60% digital) and not one of them has been from a major label. Bite that RIAA, I found my music fix elsewhere and I'm not coming back

But it does work.

There is one thing..

I am no big fan of DRM and i would never BUY music encumbered with DRM. However it is a fact that DRM allows the music rental/subscription model used by napster et al. These are genuinely usefull services that simply would not be feasable without DRM.

Re: There is one thing..

Re: There is one thing..

In answer to Ben...

Online music sales are quite possible without DRM. Emusic and now Apple offering non DRM music being existing cases in point. Rental would be difficult, but it is a questionable benefit in the case of music.

No reason to suspect it to be otherwise with movies. The DVD DRM has been broken for years. To the extent that it is a trivial matter to duplicate a DVD with freely available tools and a little more time than it takes to watch the movie. Yet DVD rentals are going strong. Especially online where there is a greater choice of titles and no late fees. It must be way quicker to rent a movie than it is to use P2P or bit torrent networks and then once you eventually get the actual movie you are looking for, to burn it onto a DVD. Much less chance of getting caught too I would assume.

DRM is a farce. It reduces the flexibility of the media to be played in the equipment available, so making it less useful. A dubious advantage for anyone.

Re: Re: There is one thing..

I've been able to make copies of all my kids DVDs using tools that until recently were freely available. I put the original DVD away and make as many copies as I want - no more worrying about damage to or losing the DVD. I also made xvid versions, enabling me to copy 5 or more movies onto a single DVD - a god send on long trips. Screw you MPAA. Screw you RIAA.

Nuts

my personal manifesto

I feel a little bad advertising here, but I'll only do it once.

I read this site every day and have enjoyed watching the rapidly approaching demise of DRM. I hate DRM. I have railed against it as often as I can, forbidden friends and family whenever possible from using DRMed media, and spent mental energy trying to refine my ideas.

All the arguments for DRM are pathetic. Please tell me how to show more contempt, so that I can do it. I have put my money and time where my mouth is: I just launched an online music (newage) store at http://www.melodyscape.com

These artists aren't crying for DRM. Maybe or maybe not DRM enables some things, but here's what NO DRM enables: me to work with these musicians and get them a few sales they wouldn't get otherwise, and to create friendly relationships with listeners and musicians, instead of the hostile ones that record labels like to create.

As a musician, the correct path right now is to make friends with your fans and trust them to buoy you. This is a bit hard to believe in the current environment where the music industry has trained musicians and listeners to be mortal enemies,
but there is a phrase "patron of the arts" which is a praiseworthy role for an individual to undertake, and one that is everyone's birthright as a citizen of an affluent civilization. DRM stands in the way of that.

Each of you knows what you personally need to do if you want to fight it. I wish you all the courage and strength to actually do it.

re: In no way, shape or form has any DRM ever hind

To be fair, it hinders casual piracy among those users not participating in filesharing. I dont think anyone except DRM purveyours (who, as salesmen, trump up their products claims and expectations more than is wise) are claiming that it hinders "piracy" the initial act of ripping and distribution.

Unfortunately, it also hinders casual viral marketing i.e. "check out this song!!!"

Both effects are real--they go hand in hand. In fact the failure to see piracy as marketing is the very core of the industry's behemoth screwup.

Re:

I have developed an analogy on the evils of DRM. As most everyone knows DRM does not enable anything, it deprives the user of being able to freely use their content.

Imagine a gallon of milk, it costs $4.00. The gallon of milk represents the body of rights a content user has, the right to change formats, the right to mix/match, the right to time shift, etc. Each of these rights is analogous to a pint.

DRM allows the content sellers to stop selling the milk by the gallon and only sell the milk by the pint at $1.50 a pint.

The content sellers claim that that by dividing one big right into four smaller rights that they are creating value and flexibility for the consumer. Hogwash.

They also claims that this al-carte service will save the consumer money. In fact the consumer, under this scenario, would pay $6.00 for the gallon of milk instead of $4.00. Hardly an economic benefit to the consumer.

Re:

Please don't be disingenuous. Implicit in your analogy is the supposition that consumers need fewer pints, so they will appreciate smaller portions being available, and that one of the pints is vanilla which is only available in smaller quantities due to it being newer and in smaller demand but is a delicious new flavor to try out.

Of course, this supposition is wrong. Its part of the philosophy though.

Re:

I say this about your analogy. The reason they want to convince you that its a deal is because they hope customers aren't smart enough to realize they would have to pay $6 instead of $4 for a gallon. It is true that DRM enables nothing but the point of marketing isn't to advertise their product in hopes that you will chose it, the point is to make you think you must have their product.

Yes DRM is nothing but a product that the industry is trying to force on us by claiming it will add vale to music.

I personally don't like messing with analogies but I just had to chime in.

No freedom!

I am quite baffled at the industry's logic:

Company X shows off its commercial all over TV (for free, even on non-cable channels). Fans find company X's commercial entertaining, so they upload it to YouTube for anyone to find and view. Rather than accept the increased publicity, company X flips out and demands that YouTube take its commercial down immediately regardless of the fact that the fans did not edit the commercial in any way (i.e. removing the product being advertised or company logo). Company X feels entitled to having complete control over what information flows into our heads despite having just forced it into our faces against our will (when it first aired).

The problem only escalates with this issue of music and DRM. Rather than devise new marketing schemes, companies invest everything they have into instilling control. As a software developer, am I the only one who takes piracy as a compliment? Sure, it means sales are not as high as they could have been (before factoring in the unprecedented amount of advertising that piracy provides), but obviously my creative output was so good that people out there wanted it that badly.

So, you want an analogy, do ya?

Suppose that camera makers were worried that you would take your camera and make child porn with it, so it only worked in specific theme parks and recreational facilities that had an agreement with said camera manufacturer. If you wanted to take pictures at someone else's home, or on the street, or in a theme park NOT associated with the manufacturer, then it would simply not power on.

When you complain, they shrug and say, "No, it enables more things you can legally do with your camera, because we don't have to worry you're going to break the law with it." and when you say that you want it to work everywhere they smile smugly and reply, "Well, we're trying take care of those interoperability issues, but sea world won't pay us the money we want."

THAT is what DRM is. They assume you are going to do something illegal with the product, so they limit you, thus saying "We're pretty sure you're trying to rip us off, all of you including 12 year old boys and 88 year old women, so we're going to beat you to the punch."

DRM is just a technology

Of course DRM can enable new business models. Ben's example of subscription music services is a good (and obvious) one. If you don't like subscriptions, don't subscribe. But there are well over a million people who do -- read the comments from Rhapsody users sometime. When they're not complaining about software glitches (not DRM-related, BTW), they're loving the ability to play as much music as they like from just about any artist for $10 a month.
Some companies use DRM in objectionable ways, but that doesn't mean DRM, as a class of technologies, is irredeemable. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And Carlo, just because you've made your argument repeatedly, that doesn't mean you're right, either. How would cable or satellite TV be possible without their version of DRM, conditional access? How would Sirius and XM be in business without their version of DRM?

Re: DRM is just a technology

I may only speak for myself, but I probably speak for others, too: we can accept the notion of a subscription service to which access must be restricted. Any further protections are ridiculous, such as those that gimp your ability to time and place shift as conveniently as possible. Thats where it transitions into the familiar realm of DRM where we are certain that its no good.

Re:

And in our economic system it is generally supposed that profits enable production. A lot of awesome stuff would not have been made without the lure of profits. To enable profits is to enable all those things.

Re:

DRM increases costs, which decreases profits. People will tend to buy less of something when it fails to work as expected. I had several Disney DVDs that will not work with several standalone DVD players. Once I rip a copy, remove the copy protection, and burn a new copy, they play perfectly in said DVD players.

Another negative aspect of DRM, that I overlooked in my analogy; an expiration date. DRM allows the content producer to "vaporize" content at their will; obviously not a benefit to the consumer.

On the issue of a subscription service as being a "good" use of DRM, wrong. Subscription services can be done by logging in and paying a monthly fee or a unit fee based on the quantity of songs downloaded. There is no reason for DRM.

Re: Steve R.'s comment on subscriptions

That depends on what kind of subscription model you're talking about. If it's bulk buying, sure -- no DRM needed. See eMusic. But if it's about paying for access to something (music, games, cable TV networks), and you're trying to offer a price differential between access and ownership, you need DRM. Otherwise, it's just bulk buying, and sellers are going to demand much higher prices.

LP, 8-track, cassette, dolby cassette, soundtrack,

myDRM is when having paid for a song, regardless of format- rather through spending my own money, or listening to a commercial from a sponsor who is spending money- I, THE CONSUMER, THEN HAVE DIGITAL WRITES TO THE CONTENT IN ALL ITS FORMATS, PRESENT AND FUTURE, FOR PERSONAL, NON-COMMERCIAL USE...